'Her function is to sustain the foetus we have created. Her blood is pumping around its body and she is feeding it through her placenta, but she is just a vessel. The baby she gives birth to on our behalf will carry none of her genes and bear no physical resemblance to her.

'She speaks a different language. She lives in a world culturally, economically and socially so remote from ours that the distance between us is unbridgeable.'

And after all, it's not like she's really a person. She's just the earthen vessel for our golden Caucasian genes.

I personally don't see carrying a foetus around as being all that magical or special. I don't see reproduction at all as being magical or special. It has been done before, billions of times, since life began, and is therefore not magical or special. In fact, before birth control was available, it was almost inevitable. You don't even have to be intelligent to do it. Rats and mice do it. As a result if someone agrees to to carry another couple's foetus to term in return for money, I have no problem with it, good luck to them. I don't think any less of anyone for doing this and have no problem as long as there is no force or coercion of the women involved. They are doing a job and being paid for it, as simple as that. No harm no foul.

mikewadestr:Wombs with double occupancy get double money. The best part about it is that the women may get $3000.00 out of the whole thing if even that. God I love the way India treats their women.

That treads too close to 'Africans sold Africans into slavery, therefore Africa is most at fault for the Triangular Trade." Look, man: If it's Westerners doing the buying, it's not India doing this to its women. India is taking advantage, but the West is the one creating a 'want' which should not exist in a world full of abandoned children.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Sgygus: You have a problem with this, submitter? These women receive the best medical care, and $30,000 sets them up for life.

Not to mention, she and her new pimp/dealer will never try to jack them up for more money years later by suing them for the child. Seems like a safe option.

I've spent a LOT of time in India and I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, her $9,000 share is probably about 15 years of income, if she's lucky. Do that twice and you're set for life.

My concern is that she'll be completely ripped off and otherwise abused. If I knew the woman is well taken care of and was assured she'd get the money, I still don't love it, but I also know what hurdles these women face and generally favor options that help them break out.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:There's a major difference between pregnancy for one's self, which is human, and pregnancy where the mother is treated the same way the West treats a fetus: inhuman. Pregnancy for one's self is love or an accident, but it is not Cold Business.

This is Cold Business. Remember the Cylon (or Kromagg) Breeder Camps? Getting a paycheck does not erase how Life is turned into something base and worthless with this crap. Trying to pretend that this is the way to uplift these women's lives is the absolute wrong way to uplift them.

Accidental life is beautiful, even if it happens to poor people who will have very little choice to let the little bugger die, but if someone pays another to carry a foetus for them than that life is worthless? Right... Might as well start whining about how men selling their sperm is debasing life because it reduces the beauty of the creation of life to something that is bought and sold. but noooo, once someone has to walk around with it for 9 months it is somehow different.

Chariset:And after all, it's not like she's really a person. She's just the earthen vessel for our golden Caucasian genes.

Bull farking shiat, they went around bargain shopping for a womb and wound up in India for the best price/quality/legality ratio. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this. You might want to join ExperianScaresCthulhu in the crying about artificial insemination with sperm from a donor who has been reduced to "blue eyes, 6 foot 2 and a university education" on some form or another.

I was disgusted by the story itself and the state of a society when poor women are forced to sell their bodies in yet ANOTHER way to survive. Then you came along and now all I can do is laugh. I love Fark.

PreMortem:OK Daily Fail. Why do remember seeing this exact article a looong time ago yet it says published today?

I'm really hoping this is just the Daily Fail doing what it does best. I can't imagine anyone so insensitive as to say "Another woman is providing the uterus for our baby, but she's just a rent-a-womb and we've agreed not to see her or think of her or spend any time with her whatsoever. We're paying her, and she'd rather have the money anyway, right?"

The similarities between surrogate human lifestock-mongering and slavery comes to mind:

It's just business ...FTA: Mrs Orchard, a middle-class Oxfordshire housewife, admitted the £20,000 deal sounded 'cold and clinical' but insisted: 'This is a business transaction.'

And money makes everything right ...FTA: Describing the surrogate mother as 'just a vessel', the 34-year-old former estate agent added: 'There is no altruism involved on the surrogate's part: she is being paid to have our baby'.

Just like syphillitic, drunken nurses in the 1700s .... No wonder the aristocracy were a bunch of amoral loonies!The couple, who are as English as their bucolic-sounding name, know only the sparest of details about the woman who is pregnant with their baby.

Well, if it's white, all right!FTA: Her function is to sustain the foetus we have created. Her blood is pumping around its body and she is feeding it through her placenta, but she is just a vessel. The baby she gives birth to on our behalf will carry none of her genes and bear no physical resemblance to her.

'He or she will have white skin and, in all probability, red hair like my husband.

It's not like we are adopting a needy black child!FTA: She's just a slave after all. It's not like she is a real person.'Of course I want her to do her best to have a successful pregnancy, and I'll be very upset - quite devastated, in fact - if it doesn't go full-term. But we do not want to get emotionally involved with our surrogate's story. I'm not interested in her background. I don't want to be part of her life.

We're not invested in her, just in the fruit of her loins.

English to Plain English Translation: We're "conservatives". We don't give a flying fark because she is Not a Member of Our Tribe. It's OK to exploit people if they are different.FTA: She speaks a different language. She lives in a world culturally, economically and socially so remote from ours that the distance between us is unbridgeable.

I hear they are doing a remake of The Munsters with more realistic monsters.

We didn't really need to buy a second child, but it seemed a whole lot less messy and time-consuming that way.FTA: Octavia, 34, who had a comfortable middle-class upbringing in Oxfordshire, and Dominic, 35, a successful financial management consultant, have been married for six years and have a three-year-old son, Orlando, who was conceived naturally.

It's all about pleasing your man.FTA: I felt not only bereft, but completely worthless,' she recalls. 'I felt I'd let Dominic down. I couldn't save our baby, I'd failed as a woman. I'm usually buoyant and positive, but I reached a very low ebb.'

It was cheap and legal, what could go wrong? What you want with reproduction is the lowest bidderFTA: They chose a clinic in Hyderabad because it was cheaper than rival organisations, and because it also offered a lawyer to negotiate the convoluted bureaucracy involved in securing the baby's British passport.Slavery is a quid pro quo. We feed them, clothe them, give them a space in the attic or a shack out back, let them worship our God to save their worthless black immortal souls ... a fair trade is no robbery!Many believe such arrangements are exploitative, and question whether it is morally right to use uneducated, impoverished women to fulfil wealthy couples' dreams of parenthood. But Octavia insists the arrangement is mutually beneficial. For her, the quid pro quo is the financial recompense - huge by the standards of impoverished Indians -_ the surrogate will have received.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

People have not changed, not since 1860, not since 1760, not since 60 B.C. They're still the same greedy, selfish, arrogant, predator, self-deceiving, lying, hypocritic, predatory scavengers of human misery that they always were. As yet, the human portion of humanity is still a very small percentage. Most well-off humans are stuck at level two or three of six on the moral development scale, just as others are stuck at level one or two of the economic development scale. And thus there is exploitation of the latter by the former on a scale scarcely to be credited.

We don't have pollution or slaves any more--it's all outsourced to China and India!

ExperianScaresCthulhu:That treads too close to 'Africans sold Africans into slavery, therefore Africa is most at fault for the Triangular Trade." Look, man: If it's Westerners doing the buying, it's not India doing this to its women. India is taking advantage, but the West is the one creating a 'want' which should not exist in a world full of abandoned children.

Children are just another commodity, like a purebred dog. I want the best product I can get, not some cut-rate, second-hand child. And if I can afford it, I should be able to buy anything I want. Free market and all that. It's why we are soooo awesome--because we buy shiat. All of it.

batcookie:ExperianScaresCthulhu: mikewadestr: Wombs with double occupancy get double money. The best part about it is that the women may get $3000.00 out of the whole thing if even that. God I love the way India treats their women.

That treads too close to 'Africans sold Africans into slavery, therefore Africa is most at fault for the Triangular Trade." Look, man: If it's Westerners doing the buying, it's not India doing this to its women. India is taking advantage, but the West is the one creating a 'want' which should not exist in a world full of abandoned children.

Your point uses too much confrontational thinking (otherwise known as logic and reason rather than comfort through self-delusion) to go over well with human beings. Metacognition and admitting our own faults are not human beings' strengths.

I can appreciate your altruism and better-for-mankind values here. It's great when couples who want a child can raise one who would otherwise be unwanted.

But why must you expect this of another person? Some couples lack, outside of their genetic family, the capacity to generate love required for raising children. Are these couples western crybabies? They "shouldn't" do this? This opens up a new opportunity for them, and for the surrogate mother, who didn't have this option before. As long as no one is being forced, I'm cool with it.

But if you believe these Indian women are being "forced" into this arrangement due to India's economic and social system, then be mad at that...not the women who are finding their way out of it. Or the couples who simply want to love their own baby but otherwise couldn't.

Great. I saw a documentary recently about the brothels in India...now all I can imagine is a kennel full of Indian women, run by folks pimping out their wombs to white ladies. Little rooms, all lined up, with a blanket and bowl of curry in each. Baby brokers/couples do walk throughs and talk about the adorable eyes on that one, or the playfulness of this one. They hand over some cash, promise to give the whelp it's shots and excitedly talk about what to name the new addition on the ride home.

Chariset:'Her function is to sustain the foetus we have created. Her blood is pumping around its body and she is feeding it through her placenta, but she is just a vessel. The baby she gives birth to on our behalf will carry none of her genes and bear no physical resemblance to her.

'She speaks a different language. She lives in a world culturally, economically and socially so remote from ours that the distance between us is unbridgeable.'

And after all, it's not like she's really a person. She's just the earthen vessel for our golden Caucasian genes.

Chariset:'Her function is to sustain the foetus we have created. Her blood is pumping around its body and she is feeding it through her placenta, but she is just a vessel. The baby she gives birth to on our behalf will carry none of her genes and bear no physical resemblance to her.

'She speaks a different language. She lives in a world culturally, economically and socially so remote from ours that the distance between us is unbridgeable.'

And after all, it's not like she's really a person. She's just the earthen vessel for our golden Caucasian genes.

Chariset:'Her function is to sustain the foetus we have created. Her blood is pumping around its body and she is feeding it through her placenta, but she is just a vessel. The baby she gives birth to on our behalf will carry none of her genes and bear no physical resemblance to her.

'She speaks a different language. She lives in a world culturally, economically and socially so remote from ours that the distance between us is unbridgeable.'

And after all, it's not like she's really a person. She's just the earthen vessel for our golden Caucasian genes.